progression of faithlessness
a look at the phenomenon of anti-religion, popularised by richard dawkins, for example in his books; the blind watchmaker and the god delusion.
oh mr dawkins, mr blind critic. plaigerising flawed reasoning - exploring concepts defunct as soon as they are spoken. by delving into archaic acedemia, in your militantly atheist missionising, and placing black and white constructs onto epistemologies, you have misplaced reality, and perverted humanity's perceptions of their real status (apparently, after a google search, there is no plural for status but it could be presumed that statae would sufice, no?), you have inverted what is, twisting your theoretcal presumptions to fit permises held for millenia by aching modernists, hating to admit their subjugation to an Almighty Creator.
nothing but a modern-day forerunner of this fundamentalist anti-religionism, an heir of pre-nineteenth century social philosophers, portraying the progression of religion to be 1) animism (primitive polytheism), progressing to 2) monotheism, culminating in 3) the 'most civilised' atheism.
looking at our modern world, and the way that 'religions' have been almost totally abandoned, it would seem that these theories are true. taking the fact that people are looking beyond the 'religion' they have been born into, the epistemologies imposed upon them by their culture and time and place, that them seeing beyond this and leaving it behind, as a proof for this defunct theory - that their origins are therefore primative, and before that primate, and before that some kind of supra-mammal rat creature... is it necessarily true? does that make any sense at all?
isn't it a right, and a great evidence of the intellectual freedom of being a human, indeed of his ability for critical thought, that he explore all concepts placed in front of him (please excuse the apparent chauvenism, but to refer to human as 'man' is a mere turn of phrase)? yes, it is not only a right, but an obligation that one critically analyse ALL that is thrust their way, peddled as truth and corrupted by the evil hearts of men.
turth will always outshine and outlast the dimness of falsehood. humanity, no matter how much entrenched in wars for the desires, can still feel truth in that inner sanctum, a hidden niche only waiting to radiate...
so examine all you will, the truth is concrete and everlasting, not bound by time or pllace, era or eon. it was eternally before time, and is endlessly in eternity. thats all you need to seek to find mr dawkins. we're watching you...
oh mr dawkins, mr blind critic. plaigerising flawed reasoning - exploring concepts defunct as soon as they are spoken. by delving into archaic acedemia, in your militantly atheist missionising, and placing black and white constructs onto epistemologies, you have misplaced reality, and perverted humanity's perceptions of their real status (apparently, after a google search, there is no plural for status but it could be presumed that statae would sufice, no?), you have inverted what is, twisting your theoretcal presumptions to fit permises held for millenia by aching modernists, hating to admit their subjugation to an Almighty Creator.
nothing but a modern-day forerunner of this fundamentalist anti-religionism, an heir of pre-nineteenth century social philosophers, portraying the progression of religion to be 1) animism (primitive polytheism), progressing to 2) monotheism, culminating in 3) the 'most civilised' atheism.
looking at our modern world, and the way that 'religions' have been almost totally abandoned, it would seem that these theories are true. taking the fact that people are looking beyond the 'religion' they have been born into, the epistemologies imposed upon them by their culture and time and place, that them seeing beyond this and leaving it behind, as a proof for this defunct theory - that their origins are therefore primative, and before that primate, and before that some kind of supra-mammal rat creature... is it necessarily true? does that make any sense at all?
isn't it a right, and a great evidence of the intellectual freedom of being a human, indeed of his ability for critical thought, that he explore all concepts placed in front of him (please excuse the apparent chauvenism, but to refer to human as 'man' is a mere turn of phrase)? yes, it is not only a right, but an obligation that one critically analyse ALL that is thrust their way, peddled as truth and corrupted by the evil hearts of men.
turth will always outshine and outlast the dimness of falsehood. humanity, no matter how much entrenched in wars for the desires, can still feel truth in that inner sanctum, a hidden niche only waiting to radiate...
so examine all you will, the truth is concrete and everlasting, not bound by time or pllace, era or eon. it was eternally before time, and is endlessly in eternity. thats all you need to seek to find mr dawkins. we're watching you...
Comments
Mashallah, I like the way you write =]
Isn't it that Mr Dawkins plagiarises others work. Many other people don't realise this.
Well those type of ideals have been going on forever, and dawkins just capitalises on it.
Nothing they say can ever take away from the beauty of Islam.
'Indeed, they are devising a plan and I am also scheming a plan. So, leave the disbelievers; leave them for a while.' (at-Tariq 15-17)